Is it appropriate for a deacon to wear vestments at a political rally?

[smh1978]

Recently I saw a photo in the local paper of a deacon from a parish in my town speaking at a political rally outside a congressman’s office. He was wearing his liturgical vestments. Is this appropriate? It did not seem so to me, especially because the issue at hand is one about which Catholics of good will can disagree–but it seemed like he wanted to give the impression that the Church is squarely on his side of the issue.

 

[JerryZ]

Recently I saw a photo in the local paper of a deacon from a parish in my town speaking at a political rally outside a congressman’s office. He was wearing his liturgical vestments. Is this appropriate? It did not seem so to me, especially because the issue at hand is one about which Catholics of good will can disagree–but it seemed like he wanted to give the impression that the Church is squarely on his side of the issue.

Uhmmm The Church prohibits me from using divination so unless you clarify what the issue was, I can’t voice an opinion.

 

[DaveBj]

I can’t speak to what the Church says about this issue, simply because I don’t know. However, when I was in the military, we were forbidden to wear our uniforms at demonstrations, protests, and the like, because our showing up in uniform could be interpreted as support for the issue (whatever it might be) by our service.

 

[poche]

If by vestments you mean alb, dalmatic, and stole, that would be inappropriate. It might be ok if he was wearing the clerical collar.

 

[PacoG]

If by vestments you mean alb, dalmatic, and stole, that would be inappropriate. It might be ok if he was wearing the clerical collar.

The lack of facts doesn’t help this discussion.

My speculation: sometimes, there might be a Mass during a Pro-Life Rally. The deacon might have been the homilist. In that case, it would be proper for him to wear his liturgical vestments (amice, alb, stole, dalmatic).

 

[smh1978]

I didn’t get specific about what the issue was because I didn’t necessarily want to start a discussion about the particular issue, and because I didn’t want to come across as picking on this particular deacon because I happen to disagree with the political stance he was taking. But in the interests of providing sufficient information, here is what I am referring to:

vcstar.com/photos/2009/dec/10/82112/

 

[TimothyH]

The story and photo are from three years ago, December 2009.

-Tim-

 

[Lapey]

I didn’t get specific about what the issue was because I didn’t necessarily want to start a discussion about the particular issue, and because I didn’t want to come across as picking on this particular deacon because I happen to disagree with the political stance he was taking. But in the interests of providing sufficient information, here is what I am referring to:

vcstar.com/photos/2009/dec/10/82112/

This is listed as an interfaith vigil. Probably not a Mass, but it would be acceptible if this is in fact a prayer service and not political rallying for a candidate. It appears it is a rally of sorts for an immigration issue, not a cnadidate’s ally for election.

But there is not much to go on here, a lot of assumptions.

 

[PacoG]

I didn’t get specific about what the issue was because I didn’t necessarily want to start a discussion about the particular issue, and because I didn’t want to come across as picking on this particular deacon because I happen to disagree with the political stance he was taking. But in the interests of providing sufficient information, here is what I am referring to:

vcstar.com/photos/2009/dec/10/82112/

Intentionally withholding material facts is the same as lying. I don’t know if it’s a sin, but it would certainly get any attorney in trouble with the State Bar or a witness held in contempt.

 

[Digitonomy]

I didn’t get specific about what the issue was because I didn’t necessarily want to start a discussion about the particular issue

I think that was wise, as I have all too often seen threads get sidetracked when members can’t look beyond the issue involved to address the question asked. That hasn’t happened in this thread yet, but it’s a reasonable approach if your goal is to get an answer to the general question.

This rally seems to be for “Humane, Comprehensive Immigtration Reform.” A bland enough goal that I think it’s probably OK, especially if the particular community he’s serving is suffering the injustice of rules that were poorly conceived or unevenly enforced.

While I’m willing to give the deacon a pass in this instance, I still don’t like it, and I think in general it’s a bad idea. We can certainly disagree on the wisdom of sending troops into Syria to end the civil war and establish a regime that respects the rule of law and the rights of the Christian minority. Nonetheless, I wouldn’t want to see a bunch of clerics leading a “Pro-war, Invade Syria” rally. And the same is true for most political issues; it’s easy for the Church to become too closely associated with one or another faction, or with an unwise, unjust, or embarrassing government action.

 

[quiet52]

Recently I saw a photo in the local paper of a deacon from a parish in my town speaking at a political rally outside a congressman’s office. He was wearing his liturgical vestments. Is this appropriate? It did not seem so to me, especially because the issue at hand is one about which Catholics of good will can disagree–but it seemed like he wanted to give the impression that the Church is squarely on his side of the issue.

Liturgical vestments are to be worn at liturgical services, which are sacred functions. A political rally is not a liturgical service. I hope the deacon was admonished by his pastor or bishop.